Vanguard45,
First, I wasn’t responding to the OP in the above posts I made in response to yours. I was responding directly to your general assertions on the use of DF & the requirements for its justification.
If you would like to see my thoughts on the OP you could jump in the ol’ “way back machine” (there’s a blast from the past for you
) & check out my posts. They start at post #128.
Here’s the first to give you a taste:
I think you might find that in regard to the OP I tend to agree with you that shooting the “attacker” might not be reasonable. You better figure out a way to convince a jury that it was or you could be in a world of hurt.
Second, from your reply above you seem to have skipped over a small but fairly important part of my last post.
YOU CANNOT USE DF TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY FROM THEFT OR DAMAGE.
You can only use DF if in the course of using reasonable force to protect your property if the other person escalates the confrontation to the point that DF is justified (i.e. SBI)
You seem to be misreading the IC on using force in SD & are throwing all of the IC into the same pot.
Let’s post it up & break it down:
Ok, so from the above, you can use ONLY reasonable force (not deadly force) to:
1. protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
2. if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
You can use deadly force only if:
1. the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.
2. the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
3. the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
And last, you can’t justify the use of ANY kind of force if:
1. you are committing or escaping after the commission of a crime;
2. you provoke unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
3. you have entered into combat with another person or are the initial aggressor unless you withdraw from the encounter and communicate to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
The last section above is why I said previously that if you get into a fist fight with the person you have made your use of self-defense as a justification much harder later if the situation turns deadly.
First, I wasn’t responding to the OP in the above posts I made in response to yours. I was responding directly to your general assertions on the use of DF & the requirements for its justification.
If you would like to see my thoughts on the OP you could jump in the ol’ “way back machine” (there’s a blast from the past for you
) & check out my posts. They start at post #128.Here’s the first to give you a taste:
I think you might find that in regard to the OP I tend to agree with you that shooting the “attacker” might not be reasonable. You better figure out a way to convince a jury that it was or you could be in a world of hurt.
Second, from your reply above you seem to have skipped over a small but fairly important part of my last post.
YOU CANNOT USE DF TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY FROM THEFT OR DAMAGE.
You can only use DF if in the course of using reasonable force to protect your property if the other person escalates the confrontation to the point that DF is justified (i.e. SBI)
You seem to be misreading the IC on using force in SD & are throwing all of the IC into the same pot.
Let’s post it up & break it down:
Ok, so from the above, you can use ONLY reasonable force (not deadly force) to:
1. protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
2. if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
You can use deadly force only if:
1. the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.
2. the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
3. the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
And last, you can’t justify the use of ANY kind of force if:
1. you are committing or escaping after the commission of a crime;
2. you provoke unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
3. you have entered into combat with another person or are the initial aggressor unless you withdraw from the encounter and communicate to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
The last section above is why I said previously that if you get into a fist fight with the person you have made your use of self-defense as a justification much harder later if the situation turns deadly.
